That and Intel pretty much owns that market. From what I understand, Intel is generally preferred as the laptop processor mainly for its cost savings.
If I'm in error, please correct me. Keep in mind, though, that I have a small light-weight TabletPC running on a Centrino processor that runs between 3 and 4 hours on a single charge. I'd really be interested to know if AMD's laptop processors to date can even compare.
Not that it matters. It's a teaser. A teaser is not intended to be secret or exclusive. It's meant to draw people in. George will probably give you a reach around if he finds out you're doing this.
"There's also a new trailer airing during tonight..."
ARGh! I'm so angry! Movie trailers are *snort* obviously advertisements and not "News for Nerds". Though I'm not sure why a commercial cannot be news, I'm extremely angry that Slashdot isn't being overly literal with every word it uses! Boy I can't wait until the next "your rights on-line" story comes up, I've got an off-topic bitter remark all cooked up just for that!
"Right now, we do have the technology to incorporate all of these features into one device with the form factor of a small notebook or PDA. Instead, people spend 5 times the amount of money on discrete appliances, and then have the added burden of having to carry them all. "
Well... I think you're both getting the point and then missing it at the same time.
A lot of Slashdotters in a rush to get the first +3 Insightful are quick to poo-poo integration. They don't care about a camera in a cell phone because it only does 640 by 480 and they've got some whiz-bang digital camera that does 5 megapixels. They paid considerably more for that camera, and they also got considerably better quality out of it. The point has been made ad-nauseum here that the more something can do, the less competent it is at doing it. It's a valid point. However, this is where they miss they miss the point entirely: That 5 megapixel camera is only good when you have it on you to use. Common sense, right? You'd think so, but when people poo-poo phones with cameras built in, they suddenly forget this point. (Race to get that +3 Insightful?) A cell phone is a nice convergence device because it stays with people at all times. I go to work: There's my cell phone. I go to an arcade: There's my cell phone. I take my family out to dinner: There's my cell phone. I take a dump: There's my cell phone. (yeah yeah, I know that'll attract smart ass comments, oh well.) Would I take my 5mp camera to an arcade? Dinner with the family? Not likely. While I'm taking a... err. Okay, that was a really bad example. I was actually thinking more about cell phone with built in games/internet etc. You get the point. Value. My cell phone does MORE. It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing. I have photos of my nephew being silly at dinner that I simply would not have captured if my phone didn't have a camera. (I could keep going but I think the point was made right there.)
I mentioned before that you got the point and then missed it. I think you get what I just said above. I think you understand why having this stuff in a cell phone is cool for a lot of people. But what I'm really replying to is "you're going on vacation". Ugh. That wouldn't be my first example. A stronger example would have been "going on a spontaneous trip". The "master of none" point still very much applies. You want a 5 megapixel photo of the Grand Canyon.
So, yes, I agree: Cell phone convergence == generally good. Moaning about new features in cell phones == generally obnoxious.
"..but first you need to convince me why a cell phone needs a hard drive to begin with."
3 gigs is a hell of a lot of music. I don't know about you, but my cell phone goes more places with me than my mp3 player, game boy, digital camera, etc. Why? Pocket space.
You may or may not care, but I dig the idea. An MP3 player or Digital Camera is worthless if either are not around when you want them. Low Quality > 0.
Whoop-de-shit. Why'd you even read the article to begin with?
I wouldn't mind, but this exact same stupid comment keeps getting modded up in every single "coooool cell phone!" story. Frankly, it's getting old, and it's really starting to smell like a cheap "gimme karma" comment.
"How many people with WinXP with FAT32 or NTFS would actually format their drives to get the cool new filesystem?"
How many people formatted/converted to Fat32/NTFS to use larger hard drives? My point? It depends on how attractive the benefits are. How many people are going to format their machines to switch to Linux? Same equation. If WinFS isn't interesting, it won't be well adopted. Mod me up.
Slashdot Mirror
" We must be the forgotten ones."
That and Intel pretty much owns that market. From what I understand, Intel is generally preferred as the laptop processor mainly for its cost savings.
If I'm in error, please correct me. Keep in mind, though, that I have a small light-weight TabletPC running on a Centrino processor that runs between 3 and 4 hours on a single charge. I'd really be interested to know if AMD's laptop processors to date can even compare.
" No, I don't give a damn about movie piracy."
Not that it matters. It's a teaser. A teaser is not intended to be secret or exclusive. It's meant to draw people in. George will probably give you a reach around if he finds out you're doing this.
"PG-13 just means that there might be some space girl in a bikini"
:)
Or they might feature somebody who was badly burned by something really hot like lava. Speaking hypothetically and spoiler free, of course.
"I'm glad I have a Tivo though - that fast forward button will come in REAL handy tonight...:)"
I'm glad Slashdot warned me not to watch OC tonight!
"There's also a new trailer airing during tonight..."
ARGh! I'm so angry! Movie trailers are *snort* obviously advertisements and not "News for Nerds". Though I'm not sure why a commercial cannot be news, I'm extremely angry that Slashdot isn't being overly literal with every word it uses! Boy I can't wait until the next "your rights on-line" story comes up, I've got an off-topic bitter remark all cooked up just for that!
".. Sony Said PS2 Will Be Able To Render ToyStory In RealTime. . ."
Then they'll demo it by putting the Toy Story DVD into the machine.
(Note: Unless the phrase '66 million polygons per second' rings a bell, you probably won't find this very funny.)
"Right now, we do have the technology to incorporate all of these features into one device with the form factor of a small notebook or PDA. Instead, people spend 5 times the amount of money on discrete appliances, and then have the added burden of having to carry them all. "
Well... I think you're both getting the point and then missing it at the same time.
A lot of Slashdotters in a rush to get the first +3 Insightful are quick to poo-poo integration. They don't care about a camera in a cell phone because it only does 640 by 480 and they've got some whiz-bang digital camera that does 5 megapixels. They paid considerably more for that camera, and they also got considerably better quality out of it. The point has been made ad-nauseum here that the more something can do, the less competent it is at doing it. It's a valid point. However, this is where they miss they miss the point entirely: That 5 megapixel camera is only good when you have it on you to use. Common sense, right? You'd think so, but when people poo-poo phones with cameras built in, they suddenly forget this point. (Race to get that +3 Insightful?) A cell phone is a nice convergence device because it stays with people at all times. I go to work: There's my cell phone. I go to an arcade: There's my cell phone. I take my family out to dinner: There's my cell phone. I take a dump: There's my cell phone. (yeah yeah, I know that'll attract smart ass comments, oh well.) Would I take my 5mp camera to an arcade? Dinner with the family? Not likely. While I'm taking a... err. Okay, that was a really bad example. I was actually thinking more about cell phone with built in games/internet etc. You get the point. Value. My cell phone does MORE. It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing. I have photos of my nephew being silly at dinner that I simply would not have captured if my phone didn't have a camera. (I could keep going but I think the point was made right there.)
I mentioned before that you got the point and then missed it. I think you get what I just said above. I think you understand why having this stuff in a cell phone is cool for a lot of people. But what I'm really replying to is "you're going on vacation". Ugh. That wouldn't be my first example. A stronger example would have been "going on a spontaneous trip". The "master of none" point still very much applies. You want a 5 megapixel photo of the Grand Canyon.
So, yes, I agree: Cell phone convergence == generally good. Moaning about new features in cell phones == generally obnoxious.
"Why can't people realize that special-purpose devices work best with special-purpose OSes?"
Cell phones aren't really special purpose devices anymore. At least in comparison to an iPod...
"..but first you need to convince me why a cell phone needs a hard drive to begin with."
3 gigs is a hell of a lot of music. I don't know about you, but my cell phone goes more places with me than my mp3 player, game boy, digital camera, etc. Why? Pocket space.
You may or may not care, but I dig the idea. An MP3 player or Digital Camera is worthless if either are not around when you want them. Low Quality > 0.
"I just want a phone."
Whoop-de-shit. Why'd you even read the article to begin with?
I wouldn't mind, but this exact same stupid comment keeps getting modded up in every single "coooool cell phone!" story. Frankly, it's getting old, and it's really starting to smell like a cheap "gimme karma" comment.
... when they are cheap enough for you, you can consider tossing (or not getting...) an MP3 player.
"Will all boobies get digitized and become virtual entities for our pleasure?"
We're the last great generation!
"How many people with WinXP with FAT32 or NTFS would actually format their drives to get the cool new filesystem?"
How many people formatted/converted to Fat32/NTFS to use larger hard drives? My point? It depends on how attractive the benefits are. How many people are going to format their machines to switch to Linux? Same equation. If WinFS isn't interesting, it won't be well adopted. Mod me up.
"Its in consumer's best interests to force them to upgrade lest they be left behind and forgotten."
Or, if you're a "the cup is half full" kind of person: It's in the best interests for the customers to not have a half-assed file system.
But, hey, karma doesn't grow on trees!
"At least when you obfuscate your folders, you make it harder for both you and intruders to find your info."
So, by making your computer less useful, it becomes more secure. I'd say "that explains a lot", but I fear mod retaliation.
"Which Linux distro takes up 60 GB?"
I'm not sure whether I should answer with RedHat or use my life-line
"At least for a change they're not trying to pretend this is a real article instead of a commercial."
Commercials are not exempt from being 'news for nerds'.
"It's called "joke". Look it up in the dictionary."
You're using that term awfully loosely there.
"Yeah, but they run Linux."
So... I'm guessing we can't get that with an automatic transmission, then.
"What's a girl?"
They're the people that leave when you enter the room.
"wasn't this posted a while back with the conclusion that these things were a hoax?"
This is not off-topic. Mod me down if you must, but the parent post was unfairly modded.
"This has some pretty good photos, as well as a picture with (MS Paint?)"
Oh come on guys, let's not be so hard on GIMP.
"How close is Mount St. Helens to Redmond?"
Ack! NO!! Nintendo's in Redmond!!
"Virutal reality sex, now a possibility"
That is until the Personality Processing Unit comes out.